"The rumors are true: Former President Barack Obama will receive $400,000 tospeak at a health care conference organized by the Wall Street firm CantorFitzgerald.

It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits apattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama’sentire presidency. That governing failure convinced millions of his onetimesupporters that the president and his party were not, in fact, playing fortheir team, and helped pave the way for President Donald Trump. Obama’s WallStreet payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that theDemocratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand orcare about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It’s hard to fault those whocome to this conclusion.

Obama refused to prosecute the rampant fraud behind the 2008 Wall Streetcollapse, despite inking multibillion-dollar settlement aftermultibillion-dollar settlement with major firms over misconduct ranging fromforeclosure fraud to rigging energy markets to tax evasion. In some cases,big banks even pleaded guilty to felonies, but Obama’s Justice Departmentallowed actual human bankers to ride into the sunset. Early in hispresidency, Obama vowed to spend up to $100 billion to help strugglingfamilies avert foreclosure. Instead, the administration converted the reliefplan into a slush fund for big banks, as top traders at bailed-out firmswere allowed to collect six-figure bonuses on the taxpayers’ dime.

Nothing forced Obama to govern this way. Had he truly believed thatprosecuting bankers for obvious criminal fraud would cause an economiccollapse, Obama would, presumably, have tried to radically reshape thefinancial sector. He did not. His administration’s finance-friendly policiesdamaged the economic recovery and generated a new cohort of Trump voters. AsNate Cohn of The New York Times has demonstrated, nearly one-fourth of Obama’swhite working-class supporters in 2012 flipped for Trump in 2016. Racism andmisogyny were surely part of Trump’s appeal, but not all two-time Obamavoters turned to Trump out of bigotry alone.

It’s easier for Democrats to denounce Trump supporters as morally unworthyindividuals than to consider whether governing failures in the Obama eracontributed to Trump’s popularity. In the final years of his presidency,Obama made clear that he wanted to be remembered as a great Democraticreformer — a leader who expanded access to health care and embodied thehumane, egalitarian side of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.But the disconnect between this progressive vision and his Wall Streetrecord is not trivial. The Obama foreclosure plan hurt families. Refusing topunish financial crime has encouraged more of it. Workers are still diggingout from the economic wreckage caused by too-big-to-fail banks in 2008, andthose banks are bigger today than they were during the meltdown. Wealthaccrues to a tiny population of bank executives and shareholders instead offlowing to households. Society is more unequal, and the prospects forprogress depend on a financial sector fraught with unnecessary systemicrisk.

This risk is not confined to the Trump presidency. Obama once calledeconomic inequality “the defining challenge of our time,” but Democraticleaders have been steadfastly aligning their own personal fortunes with thevery elites the system is rigged to favor. Throughout her 2016 presidentialcampaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was dogged by themillions of dollars in speaking fees she courted from major financialinstitutions after leaving the State Department. Her primary opponent, Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), mocked a Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs, saying itmust have been a “world-shattering” talk “probably written in Shakespeareanprose.” She never had a good answer to questions about these talks duringdebates, and eventually she resorted to invoking the twisted logic of theSupreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision in an effort to deflectaccusations of corruption.

Clinton and her husband were worth over $100 million at the time. But a fewmillion dollars between elites is not considered that big a deal in theWashington social scene. The money is an instrument of influence, ratherthan wealth ― a way of maintaining status, of exercising informal,unofficial, but very real power. It is a relationship incompatible withsmall-d democratic principles.

Sanders was not able to derail Clinton’s primary campaign with thiscritique. And die-hard Democrats will doubtless find ways to excuse oroverlook Obama’s decision to follow in Clinton’s buckraking footsteps.Professional Democrats have admired Obama for many reasons despite hisfinancial policy failures, and a few hundred grand will not make themreconsider this judgment. But the Goldman Sachs issue was a serious problemfor Clinton during the general election, feeding right-wing narratives thatshe and her husband were fundamentally corrupt (not to be confused with thefairy tales about her killing Vince Foster and four Americans in Benghazi).

Obama isn’t running for office again, but his sellout sends even ugliersignals to the electorate. Clinton had very limited policy power over thefinancial sector during her time at the State Department. Obama, on theother hand, had plenty. Voters could be forgiven for seeing a president cashout to Wall Street at the end of his term and concluding that maybe he wasn’timmune to those considerations when he was making policy in office.

“Regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values,his vision, and his record,” Obama spokesman Eric Schultz told HuffPost in awritten statement. “He recently accepted an invitation to speak at a healthcare conference in September, because, as a president who successfullypassed health insurance reform, it’s an issue of great importance to him.With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I’d justpoint out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street thanany candidate in history ― and still went on to successfully pass andimplement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR.”

It is impossible to know what the 2010 Wall Street reform law would havelooked like had Obama not received loads of campaign money from thefinancial sector. Maybe he would have broken up the banks. Maybe he wouldhave reinstated Glass-Steagall. Campaign finance regulations -- which thevast majority of Democratic voters support -- would be unnecessary ifpolitical leaders were not influenced by campaign contributions.

What’s most baffling about Obama’s $400,000 payday is the fact that he doesn’tneed the money. He and his wife, former first lady Michelle Obama,reportedly received $65 million from Penguin Random House for their memoirs.He is an excellent writer who has already written two best-selling books,and he’ll receive a handsome $200,000 pension from the federal governmentevery year for the rest of his life. Several generations of Obamas will befinancially secure. His legacy is not nearly as safe.

Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bringyou the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news fromHuffPost and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s allmade. Click here to sign up!"

Post by a425coupleObama's $400,000 Wall Street Speech Is Completely In CharacterAsk all the bankers he jailed for fraud.27/04/2017 05:47 SAST | Updated 27/04/2017 05:47 SASTAnd this, is from the Huffington Post!!!!"The rumors are true: Former President Barack Obama will receive$400,000 to speak at a health care conference organized by the WallStreet firm Cantor Fitzgerald.It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-infits a pattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector,

And yet it was Trump, not Obama, who put a Wall Street executive in hisCabinet in charge of Financials.

Post by a425coupleObama's $400,000 Wall Street Speech Is Completely In CharacterAsk all the bankers he jailed for fraud.27/04/2017 05:47 SAST | Updated 27/04/2017 05:47 SASTAnd this, is from the Huffington Post!!!!"The rumors are true: Former President Barack Obama will receive$400,000 to speak at a health care conference organized by the WallStreet firm Cantor Fitzgerald.It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-infits a pattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector,

And yet it was Trump, not Obama, who put a Wall Street executive in hisCabinet in charge of Financials.

Short attention span Baxter?Did you read the next line before you sniped?Repeat:It should not be a surprise. This unseemly and unnecessary cash-in fits apattern of bad behavior involving the financial sector, one that spans Obama’sentire presidency. That governing failure convinced millions of his onetimesupporters that the president and his party were not, in fact, playing fortheir team, and helped pave the way for President Donald Trump. Obama’s WallStreet payday will confirm for many what they have long suspected: that theDemocratic Party is managed by out-of-touch elites who do not understand orcare about the concerns of ordinary Americans. It’s hard to fault those whocome to this conclusion.

Obama refused to prosecute the rampant fraud behind the 2008 Wall Streetcollapse, despite inking multibillion-dollar settlement aftermultibillion-dollar settlement with major firms over misconduct ranging fromforeclosure fraud to rigging energy markets to tax evasion. In some cases,big banks even pleaded guilty to felonies, but Obama’s Justice Departmentallowed actual human bankers to ride into the sunset. Early in hispresidency, Obama vowed to spend up to $100 billion to help strugglingfamilies avert foreclosure. Instead, the administration converted the reliefplan into a slush fund for big banks, as top traders at bailed-out firmswere allowed to collect six-figure bonuses on the taxpayers’ dime.

Nothing forced Obama to govern this way. Had he truly believed thatprosecuting bankers for obvious criminal fraud would cause an economiccollapse, Obama would, presumably, have tried to radically reshape thefinancial sector. He did not. His administration’s finance-friendly policiesdamaged the economic recovery and generated a new cohort of Trump voters. AsNate Cohn of The New York Times has demonstrated, nearly one-fourth of Obama’swhite working-class supporters in 2012 flipped for Trump in 2016. Racism andmisogyny were surely part of Trump’s appeal, but not all two-time Obamavoters turned to Trump out of bigotry alone.

It’s easier for Democrats to denounce Trump supporters as morally unworthyindividuals than to consider whether governing failures in the Obama eracontributed to Trump’s popularity. In the final years of his presidency,Obama made clear that he wanted to be remembered as a great Democraticreformer — a leader who expanded access to health care and embodied thehumane, egalitarian side of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson.But the disconnect between this progressive vision and his Wall Streetrecord is not trivial. The Obama foreclosure plan hurt families. Refusing topunish financial crime has encouraged more of it. Workers are still diggingout from the economic wreckage caused by too-big-to-fail banks in 2008, andthose banks are bigger today than they were during the meltdown. Wealthaccrues to a tiny population of bank executives and shareholders instead offlowing to households. Society is more unequal, and the prospects forprogress depend on a financial sector fraught with unnecessary systemicrisk.

This risk is not confined to the Trump presidency. Obama once calledeconomic inequality “the defining challenge of our time,” but Democraticleaders have been steadfastly aligning their own personal fortunes with thevery elites the system is rigged to favor. Throughout her 2016 presidentialcampaign, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was dogged by themillions of dollars in speaking fees she courted from major financialinstitutions after leaving the State Department. Her primary opponent, Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), mocked a Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs, saying itmust have been a “world-shattering” talk “probably written in Shakespeareanprose.” She never had a good answer to questions about these talks duringdebates, and eventually she resorted to invoking the twisted logic of theSupreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision in an effort to deflectaccusations of corruption.

Clinton and her husband were worth over $100 million at the time. But a fewmillion dollars between elites is not considered that big a deal in theWashington social scene. The money is an instrument of influence, ratherthan wealth ― a way of maintaining status, of exercising informal,unofficial, but very real power. It is a relationship incompatible withsmall-d democratic principles.

Sanders was not able to derail Clinton’s primary campaign with thiscritique. And die-hard Democrats will doubtless find ways to excuse oroverlook Obama’s decision to follow in Clinton’s buckraking footsteps.Professional Democrats have admired Obama for many reasons despite hisfinancial policy failures, and a few hundred grand will not make themreconsider this judgment. But the Goldman Sachs issue was a serious problemfor Clinton during the general election, feeding right-wing narratives thatshe and her husband were fundamentally corrupt (not to be confused with thefairy tales about her killing Vince Foster and four Americans in Benghazi).

Obama isn’t running for office again, but his sellout sends even ugliersignals to the electorate. Clinton had very limited policy power over thefinancial sector during her time at the State Department. Obama, on theother hand, had plenty. Voters could be forgiven for seeing a president cashout to Wall Street at the end of his term and concluding that maybe he wasn’timmune to those considerations when he was making policy in office.

“Regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values,his vision, and his record,” Obama spokesman Eric Schultz told HuffPost in awritten statement. “He recently accepted an invitation to speak at a healthcare conference in September, because, as a president who successfullypassed health insurance reform, it’s an issue of great importance to him.With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I’d justpoint out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street thanany candidate in history ― and still went on to successfully pass andimplement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR.”

It is impossible to know what the 2010 Wall Street reform law would havelooked like had Obama not received loads of campaign money from thefinancial sector. Maybe he would have broken up the banks. Maybe he wouldhave reinstated Glass-Steagall. Campaign finance regulations -- which thevast majority of Democratic voters support -- would be unnecessary ifpolitical leaders were not influenced by campaign contributions.

What’s most baffling about Obama’s $400,000 payday is the fact that he doesn’tneed the money. He and his wife, former first lady Michelle Obama,reportedly received $65 million from Penguin Random House for their memoirs.He is an excellent writer who has already written two best-selling books,and he’ll receive a handsome $200,000 pension from the federal governmentevery year for the rest of his life. Several generations of Obamas will befinancially secure. His legacy is not nearly as safe.

Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bringyou the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news fromHuffPost and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s allmade. Click here to sign up!"